WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: allow more vCPU-s per guest

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: allow more vCPU-s per guest
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:40:51 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:41:47 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4A3A317D02000078000067F8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acnv/qolMlglJks+QVuSj1OY/RmC5wAApV8Z
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] x86_64: allow more vCPU-s per guest
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.19.0.090515
On 18/06/2009 11:22, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> Is it safe do you think to go from d->max_vcpus=0 to d->max_vcpus!=0 on a
>>>> live domain? (i.e, the specific case we do use in your general observation
>>>> that increasing d->max_vcpus may be dangerous)?
>>> 
>>> Yes, this is safe imo.
>> 
>> Can you give an example where increasing max_vcpus from X!=0 to Y>X might be
>> dangerous?
> 
> I didn't keep any record, so I'll have to see if I can spot the place(s) again
> (if any - I only vaguely remember possibly having noticed some problem in
> the past). Oh, maybe it was just that the Linux kernel can't deal with it.
> I'll
> look around in any case and let you know.

Fair enough. Anyhow, making the domctl singleshot for now is fine by me,
since we have no usage scenario that requires greater flexibility than that.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel